A French aviation and defense expert has dismissed Pakistan’s claims of shooting down Indian Rafale fighter jets during recent military clashes, calling the assertions baseless and part of an ongoing information war between the two nations.
The controversy erupted following India’s Operation Sindoor, a series of strikes targeting terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir in retaliation for the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan claimed it had downed five Indian jets, including three Rafales, during the night of May 6-7, 2025. However, Xavier Tytelman, a noted French aviation expert cited by France24, refuted these claims, pointing to inconsistencies in the evidence Islamabad presented.
Tytelman analyzed images circulating online that supposedly showed debris from a downed Rafale in Wuyan, Kashmir. He clarified that the wreckage was actually an external fuel tank from a Mirage 2000, another French-made jet used by the Indian Air Force, and not a Rafale. The tank bore the marking “RPL” (réservoir pendular large), a designation unique to Mirage 2000s, with a manufacturing date of December 1984 confirming its origin. “This has no connection to the Rafale, which uses the RFL designation,” Tytelman explained, adding that such tanks are often jettisoned during missions and do not indicate a crash.
These expert findings align with wider skepticism regarding Pakistan’s claims. Neither Dassault Aviation, the Rafale’s manufacturer, nor the Indian government has officially acknowledged any losses. Pakistan’s statements, including those by Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, have relied heavily on unverified images and videos, such as footage showing an unexploded Mica missile that could belong to either a Mirage 2000 or a Rafale.
The incident has sparked debate, with some accusing Western media, particularly in the U.S., of amplifying the narrative to undermine the Rafale’s reputation in the global arms market. An article in the Eurasian Times suggested that highlighting the alleged Rafale losses may be a strategic move to promote American fighter jets in India, which is currently negotiating several multi-billion-dollar aerospace deals.
Operation Sindoor marked India’s first strikes on Pakistani territory since the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, targeting nine terror sites linked to attacks like the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and the recent Pahalgam massacre. While widely praised in India for sending a strong message to terror groups, the operation has escalated tensions with Pakistan, causing civilian casualties due to retaliatory shelling in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district.
Analysts say the Rafale controversy underscores the role of misinformation in modern conflicts. “This isn’t just about a piece of debris—it’s about who controls the narrative,” Tytelman observed, urging India to issue robust public rebuttals to counter false claims. As the fragile ceasefire between India and Pakistan continues, the incident highlights the challenge of discerning truth amid the fog of war.
Did the Recent India-Pakistan Conflict Expose Chinese Defense Equipment Myths and Shatter Pakistan’s Reliance on China for Defense?
A. Missiles and Air Defense Systems
During the First Strike:
India launched a swift and precise attack targeting nine locations in PoK and Punjab province using Rafale jets equipped with SCALP cruise missiles and AASM Hammer bombs. The operation was completed in approximately 23 minutes. Indian aircraft did not enter Pakistani airspace; instead, they fired missiles from stand-off distances. Even though it was clear an Indian airstrike was imminent, the Chinese-made air defense systems took too long to respond—something unacceptable in modern warfare. This was not Gaza, Jordan, or Afghanistan, but a live testbed for advanced Chinese defense systems, which utterly failed.
Pakistan had various air defense systems, but they were completely ineffective against low-flying, terrain-hugging cruise missiles like SCALP.
India used advanced electronic warfare techniques to blind the Chinese-origin radar and communication systems of Pakistan, rendering their air defense units paralyzed.
India precisely identified terrorist infrastructure using solid intelligence, allowing for highly accurate strikes.
During the Second Conflict:
Pakistan and its Chinese advisors had ample time to prepare for a retaliatory strike, focusing heavily on deploying strong air defense around key structures like airbases.
Pakistan relied extensively on Chinese systems such as the LY-80 (HQ-16) medium-range SAMs and FD-2000 (export version of HQ-9). These systems looked effective on paper and in advertisements, but poor radar coverage in mountainous terrain, failure against low radar cross-section missiles, and a lack of real-world combat performance exposed their flaws. Chinese defense equipment still needs significant improvement.
India used electronic jamming and spoofing (via Su-30MKI and ground systems), rendering Pakistani radars and the Chinese-origin SAM network ineffective throughout the conflict.
Coordination between Pakistan’s Air Force and Air Defense Command was chaotic and ineffective.
Even days after the initial strikes, Pakistan failed to protect major airbases, revealing serious shortcomings in its air defense readiness. This not only showed the limitations of Chinese technology but also proved the failure of China’s layered air defense doctrine.
Meanwhile, India’s air defense systems were remarkably effective during Pakistan’s retaliatory attempts.
On May 10, 2025, during Pakistan’s Operation “Bunyan al-Marsus,” over 25 missile and drone attacks were launched against India. However, India’s robust multi-layered air defense network intercepted all of them. The failed Chinese missiles and drones ended up as broken toys in Indian fields, becoming a source of amusement for children.
India’s Akash and Barak-8 systems were also deployed, while the IACCS (Integrated Air Command and Control System) enabled real-time tracking and coordination.
B. Combat Aircraft
Did the Pakistani Air Force—featuring American F-16s and Chinese JF-10, JF-17 fighters—overpower the Indian Air Force?
No. The Indian Air Force maintained air superiority. India used SCALP cruise missiles to hit deep targets without entering Pakistani airspace. Losses were minimal, indicating India’s dominance in electronic warfare and Pakistan’s poor interception capability. If your airbases are being bombed for hours and your F-16s, JF-10s, and JF-17s can’t even take off, then what’s the point of having them or mounting PF-15 missiles on them?
The American F-16s and Chinese JF-series jets remained inactive, watching Indian missiles hit their bases like a nightmare from concrete shelters.
Most major Pakistani airbases were struck at will by India, even those near the capital, while F-16s and JF jets blinked inside their hangars. In contrast, no Indian airbase suffered major damage, and IAF operations remained uninterrupted.
The PF-15 missile, with a real-world effective range of 105 km, was helpless as Indian aircraft struck from 250 km away. It neither retaliated nor defended.
India launched stand-off missile strikes from Rafales using SCALP and Hammer bombs, with ranges between 250–500+ km.
Even if unverified reports about one damaged Rafale are assumed to be true, Pakistani airspace remained defenseless throughout, while Indian airspace stayed fully secure.
Can it be said that Pakistan’s Chinese air defense systems, Chinese fighter jets, and PF-15 failed?
Yes, this is a fair conclusion. SCALP missiles and smart bombs went unchallenged. Radar coverage was blind. Chinese defense systems, combat aircraft, and PF-15 missiles all failed against Indian technological superiority.
Markets don’t lie. Since the end of hostilities, shares of most Chinese defense companies have been consistently falling. Investors are pulling out, and it seems that in the future, China will have to offer significant discounts to export its defense products.